Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@vitrion/zentria-mcp

@vitrion/zentria-mcp

Official
by vitrionbv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update-stl-flow

Modify an existing Speed to Lead flow in Zentria CRM by specifying its ID and the fields to change, such as name, status, template, or receiving phone number.

Instructions

Update a Speed to Lead flow (PUT /api/public/stl/flows/{id}). Scope: stl:write.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update-stl-flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFlow id.
nameNo
statusNo
templateJsonNo
receivingPhoneNo
customerIntegrationIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses the HTTP method (PUT) and the required scope (stl:write), which indicate authorization and mutation. However, it does not explain update semantics such as partial vs full replacement, effects on missing fields, or failure behavior; with no annotations, the burden was on the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core purpose, endpoint, and auth scope are front-loaded. Every phrase adds information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with six parameters, one nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. An agent gets no guidance on how to structure an update request or what happens after invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The endpoint path clarifies that id is a path parameter, adding a small semantic not in the schema. But with only 17% schema description coverage, the tool should explain the remaining parameters (status, templateJson, receivingPhone, customerIntegrationId); it does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly identifies the action (Update), the resource (Speed to Lead flow), the HTTP method (PUT), and the endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling STL tools such as create-stl-flow, get-stl-flow, list-stl-flows, and delete-stl-flow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create/get/delete or what prerequisites exist (e.g., the flow must already exist). The use case is only implied by the verb 'Update'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools